It always amazes me how many different scenarios can be created by the many, many agendas on this board. As "Whatnow" surmises, a CLT-CDG flight has been talked about for the past 2 years by both Parker and Kirby. This would be in addition to the PHL-CDG flight. Why would US transfer a historical 90+% LF (peak season 2007) flight to a post 9/11 untried station? AF's CDG LF is almost identical to US at PHL during this time - more than 15000 passengers/month each - in combined both directions. A 2nd PHL-CDG summer flight has been debated for the past 2 years. Possibly that decision has been changed to a CLT-CDG route - if there is any relationship between the 2 hubs in this matter at all. If a CLT-CDG route is started, particularly if in the fall, it would require significant connecting traffic to keep it afloat.
Once the 332s start arriving next year, IMO it is unlikely they will be used anywhere but PHL for quite awhile as US tries to maximize usage and Turns for the to be expected 5000+nm new routes. Any international expansion from other hubs would likely be with 333s and 767s. Further, US using a 332 on a CLT-Western Europe route would be a wasted resource, since in fact an existing, properly weighted ATA 757-200 could even fly to Britain, France or AMS for a route trial period. Of course little of this may be relevant if UA is the aquiring and managing carrier in any future acquisition.
Once the 332s start arriving next year, IMO it is unlikely they will be used anywhere but PHL for quite awhile as US tries to maximize usage and Turns for the to be expected 5000+nm new routes. Any international expansion from other hubs would likely be with 333s and 767s. Further, US using a 332 on a CLT-Western Europe route would be a wasted resource, since in fact an existing, properly weighted ATA 757-200 could even fly to Britain, France or AMS for a route trial period. Of course little of this may be relevant if UA is the aquiring and managing carrier in any future acquisition.
